Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Cowardice or Prudunce?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_re_us/us_prophet_drawings_yale
You all remember the infamous Cartoon Wars from years back. Should Yale print them in the book despite threats of violence?
You all remember the infamous Cartoon Wars from years back. Should Yale print them in the book despite threats of violence?
0
Comments
Years ago I took a mental stand against what I call the Tyranny of Righteousness. My teacher used to say it's OK to have dogmas but it is not OK to be dogmatic and try to push your way as the One Way for all peoples. This dogmatism is a bully that hurts, demeans, and kills people. In a word, dogmatism is a brute. (The unfettered sense of the Freedom of the Press is also a brute.)
Now, accepting that fact about the evils of dogma is true, if you do, you must apply it to your own tradition, both religious and secular.
Therefore, my principle is:
My tradition is not worth two cents if it hurts other innocent people.
Now that is a very simple sentence and can be interpreted and applied in a number of ways. Nevertheless, it asserts hurting those who inflict no hurt on others is just wrong.
For me the issue is not susceptibility to violent repercussions, but rather sensitivity to moral outrage and misunderstanding on behalf of the Muslim community that might result from such publication.
If Yale University will not publish books showing naked men walking into classrooms filled with 9-yr-old girls for reasons of propriety, I do not feel their reluctance to publish depictions of the Prophet any less deserving of my support. Either situation is loathsome to many.
I believe that is in incumbent on civilized people everywhere to be tolerant and understanding of cultural and religious differences and always to reach out for the middle ground where real, peaceable encounters can be made and sustained.
In areas of cultural sensitivity a thorough-going fixation on the Rights of The Free Press is just inappropriate. Nuff Said.
If by tradition you mean "free speech," how and when does free speech ever hurt someone? Do you mean tradition that merely offends? Because in that case, wouldn't it be easy for a nefarious individual to simply claim that everything that goes against his religion (gender equality, sexual liberty) offends him and therefore such free speech is "not worth two cents?"
Isn't it curious that no writer or film maker is ever worried about the "misunderstanding on behalf of the Christian/Jewish/Buddhist community?" Why is it only Muslims that seem to react with such widespread fury and violence when someone insults their religion? And let's be perfectly honest; the only reason that more writers/publishers/film makers don't bash Islam like they frequently do Christianity is that they're not worried about Christians killing them.
So which is the superior value? Cultural sensitivity or freedom?
My dear cKoB,
I think that you have been misled by the parochialism and insularity of much of the US media industry: there are countless examples of Christian and Jewish attacks on freedom of speech. Do you not recall Christian protests at Jerry Springer: The Musical or the action of 'pro-life' campaigners? Have you ever seen the vitriol and censorship imposed on those who dare speak out, however mildly, against Israel's action. And, beyond the bile of the 'Abrahamic' faiths, what about the Hindu fundamentalists or the Buddhists in Sri Lanks?
No. Religion is used time and again to limit speech. Indeed, there was nearly a US Constitutional Amendment, if memory serves, to ban flag-burning which has now been deemed 'free speech'. This suggests to me that the whole notion needs to be discussed and debated, and the question asked as to what limits should be put on it. Whilst we still have laws of slander and libel, we have already agreed to limit such freedom, haven't we?
Hey, KoB! Hope you're well.
One might just as well ask what harm murderers do. To assail the faith of someone by maligning that faith's Prophet is incendiary —and therefore a hurtful action. Muslims are iconoclastic and are against "graven images." Not only are images of the Prophet that would shed favorable light on him eschewed, but ones that would caricature him unfavorably are simply beyond the pale for Muslims everywhere.
Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech are rights that need to be balanced with all due restraint. At base these rights are grounded in RESPECT for the rights of everyone concerned, and therefore some refraining from self-serving motives is incumbent on any seeker of the truth. There is only one motive beyond all moral reproach and that is the pursuit of justice: Has anyone been harmed or is likely to be harmed by such-and-such action and what are the facts (not dreams, not hallucinations or imaginations or fancies)?
Freedom of Speech and freedom of the press are based on the right of a person to speak the truth against a cloud of witnesses that doth dissemble. It's all about speaking up for justice or speaking out against injustice. It's all about speaking out for the right. IMNSHO, all this stuff about freedom of "expression" is completely misguided. It won't get you anywhere at school, at work, or on the freeway back and forth. It may work pretty well at home some of the time and also in the marketplace; though at home you really must mind your p's and q's, when it comes to expressing your every little thought.
_________
I said: My tradition is not worth two cents if it hurts other innocent people.
Your Response:
KoB, I must admit I cannot follow you here. I was referring to the arrogance of our world view. Can we really claim that "we" are right and that "they" are wrong?
No, I did not mean tradition that "merely offends," as you say. A free press that acts like a loose cannon does not merely offend; it blunders and does bludgeoning harm.
The particular issue of the "Danish cartoons" a few years back is not one about a case of "mere ideas" clashing. This matter is about arrogance, lack of circumspection, and unforgivably bad manners. Hey, we've all gotta share this ship, so let's not let 'er sink by infighting.
To be humane on this ship is to play the host, to be gracious, and to make people feel valued and important. Don't insult them and then turn around and expect the world to be a peaceable place. You can forget peaceful.
Save the Planet!
In areas of cultural sensitivity a thorough-going fixation on the Rights of The Free Press is just inappropriate. That's what I said.
You Replied:
I was only saying it was rather mean-spirited and short-sighted for the Danish and other European newspapers to publish those inappropriate cartoons that broke some rather strong precepts of the Muslim religion.
If you're comfortable with mean-spirited people and short-sighted ones, too, more power to you! There certainly are a lot of them out there and we must all strive to get along. I admire you!
I'm not used to weighing necessary or good qualities off against each other. However, that said, cultural sensitivity is sure a lot easier to define than freedom. So, I'll choose cultural sensitivity, if that's OK with you.
Cultural Sensitivity (CS) is basically accepting that people have some needs that are different from those of others. CS is best informed by readings and studies about such themes and by contact with different folks. CS is invigorated by a healthy esteem for the human being of all stages along the lifespan in varying economic conditions. CS, furthermore, entails a certain humility about one's own culture and a genuine fascination with what mysteries or knowledge traditions other cultures have.
Freedom is good, too, but unfortunately it also entails the freedom to do the wrong thing too. The main definition of freedom, pragmatically speaking, is the ability to walk away from a given situation. Unfortunately you cannot just walk away from disease, old age, death, some obsessive enemies, etc., etc. Also, you may technically be "free" to walk towards the Light and towards the Good, the True, and Beautiful, but there are no guarantees.
At least one can progress in cultural sensitivity. Freedom is an uncharted map.
Be Well, My Friend!
Fondly,
Nirvy
First off, thank you. I'm doing very well. Just got back to college a few weeks ago.
You are equating free speech with murder. I don't doubt that it's a hurtful action. But to the many brutish, hard-liners of the fundamentalist Islamic variety, anything short of total subjugation and obedience to their demands is insulting. Why do they deserve special treatment? Is it only because they're banging the table the loudest? "Artists" can freely take a statue of the Virgin Mary, submerge it in a vat of human urine, throw feces in it, and put it on display in a museum for public viewing. Sure, some blowhards from the Catholic League will go on TV and complain, but does anyone seriously expect that museum to be bombed or for embassies in far-flung countries to be burned to the ground and people butchered?
Say I take pleasure in playing jazz music loudly from my car (I do actually). Theoretically, if there was someone who believed that jazz music was evil incarnate and that it went against everything they believed in, would I be liable for their destructive behavior as a result of hearing my music being played? Would I be complicit in a murder committed by such an irrational individual? Of course not.
And what of liberty? Is liberty just a nice thing to have, but I mean if the going get's tough, by all means toss it?
Orwell said that freedom "is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Was he right? Or does freedom need an "update?" Perhaps it is the right to tell people whatever doesn't offend them.
Yes. We can. We should. I do. Moral relativist mush is the alternative. Is it arrogant to believe that liberty is worth preserving? That America and Europe have achieved something extremely rare in human history? History is tyranny. It's filled with ghastly characters and grisly regimes that stamped out the human spirit and denied individual liberty. We live in the most opulent and some of the freest societies in the history of mankind.
People can in fact be wrong, very wrong in fact. Jihadist thugs do not believe in gender equality. We do. They do not believe in open, consensual governments. We do. They do not believe in free expression or religious liberty. We do. Are you prepared to say that both sides are "misguided" or "arrogant?" If not, is one side preferable to the other? And then isn't the notion of "no rights, no wrongs" bogus?
So what? I say you should be free to be arrogant, lack circumspection, and have atrocious manners. As long as you are not inciting violence or actually doing something criminal, then you should live as you wish.
Again, if people do mischief because I'm doing something constitutionally protected, then I am not liable. But isn't it just a little bit comical that people commit horribly violent acts because someone "insulted" them by saying they're religion was violent?
And what do you have to say about the vile, barbaric publications that come out of the Muslim world about Jews? Reducing them to sub-humans and apes simply for being Jews. How many Saudi embassies have been torched by raving Jews in America or Europe? Drawings of Muhammed don't hold a candle to the staggering hatred that comes out of the Middle-East towards non-Muslims.
All I am saying is let's not pick a fight, accept people on their own terms, and give peace a chance.
Where is all this vitriol coming from? Are jihadists confronting you on a regular basis?
You cannot fight fanaticism with fanaticism, just as much as you cannot fight hatred with hatred.
Lighten up on the Muslims. They believe they are acting in accordance with right principles. For the sake of peace, we must accept them for who they are and not feel all superior-like. When we feel superior that will show in our acts and words.
I believe we have exchanged ideas in another thread on this "moral relativism mush," or really on cultural relativism. Yet, in large part, we are in agreement, I think: Nonetheless, this is no case of moral relativism, but of cultural understanding and harmony. In a harmonious relationship no one accuses the other of being wrong or misguided, but both sides look for ways in which they can best get along.
"We" are no better than "They" —just different. Now, that is not to say ours may not be better for us and more advanced humanistically. However, to insist on inflicting the highest standards of our own culture on that of another for no reason other than arrogance is just plain wrong-headed. I am not claiming that the other side is never arrogant, but that it's wrong to do things to upset them and then wonder why there's so much turmoil in the world.
Lighten up a bit, kiddo.
Peace
I think so. He was also a socialist. Perhaps he was right about that too.
Where did I say they were? I have my gripes with Islamic theology, but I certainly don't believe all are jihadists. There are variations of zeal in every faith. Some people are more serious about it than others, and other people would rather just be left alone.
I wouldn't say it's vitriol. I truly dislike jihadists with a passion. Their worldview is the antithesis of my own. I'm a believer in the maximization of liberty and thugs like the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be the biggest deniers of liberty if only they had their way.
And do I need to personally afflicted by jihadists to want to campaign or fight against them? Would I have needed to have been personally harmed by fascists or communists before fighting them in Europe or Korea? And do I need to be diagnosed with cancer before I donate time and money to find a cure? I don't think so.
Again though, how do you recommend dealing with shady characters like the Taliban and other rogues who show up occasionally? But as Barry Goldwater would remind us, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vise, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." So in that sense, I guess I'm a pro-liberty fanatic.
That's a truism. No serious person actively seeks to act against their principles. I accept anyone for who they are as long as I'm not accepting bullying, oppression, or something as ghastly as Sharia law. And yes, I believe Western-style democracy and concepts like liberty are far superior to these things. I proudly believe that.
I don't know how to reconcile both those statements. Though I happen to agree with your sort-of assertion that free societies are in fact better for EVERYONE and more advanced humanistically than say thugocracies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria.
I don't see how there would be any less turmoil in the world by following your suggestion. The thought of uncovered women offends and upsets many, though I don't think those women should be held accountable for the mischief performed as a result of that.
If free expression and liberty really do "upset" or offend certain cultures, it is more of a statement about those cultures rather than our own.
You asked above where you said all Muslims are jihadists. I believe that by the following statement you are, in effect, lumping all Muslims together. It seems to me that you're talking about the whole Muslim culture as opposed to our "more reasonable, refined, and advanced" modern culture.
Observe, though, that there is no special treatment being given to anyone here. No contact is being made; no materials are being distributed, nor any moneys. Some periodicals and pieces of art are being scrutinized a bit more and studied and some protocols put in place.
What is happening here has more to do with "our" own accountability. There are no undeserving people to whom we owe so little as to dismiss all their qualms as mere trifles. That would be the height of rudeness and an invitation to conflict.
"But to the many brutish, hard-liners of the fundamentalist Islamic variety," as you say, you seem to me to be directing some kind of retributive anger against their hallowed ideas. It's not only the hard-liners who take offense, though, and oftentimes our own insensitivity and callousness causes hard-headed/hardhearted responses.
In point of fact you are sadly mistaken about our own culture scorning religious piety and its attendant baggage of hang-ups and prohibitions. What atheist would have an icecube's chance in hell of being elected president or elevated to the Supreme Court? I remember the worst movie ever made (insufferable), The Last Temptation of Christ, and how the throngs of protesters would throng around the theaters some 23 years ago or so. We've come a long way since then, as The Da Vinci Code, which had similar innuendos about Jesus's private life, has raised so little uproar.
I believe that people everywhere basically want the same things, whilst cultures can range from severely punitive to austere to libertine. Peoples and cultures are two different orders of things. You may reject any culture (including the one you sprang from) with impunity, but you may not insult people or their core values without retribution of some kind.
If the free expression and liberty of a man really does offend me, is it really my problem? All the time? Perhaps you're right that if his behavior is bizarre and threatening it's more my immediate problem than his; however, is it more a statement about me than about him?
On a personal level, should I be morally ashamed of myself if people's free expression and liberty makes me sick to my stomach? Can't I just "set myself free" and realize that some things are just "not for me" and be done with it? I forgive the Muslims for not liking raucous music and a lot of other trifles and am glad that I have some company in the world.
I agree 100% with you about the unacceptability of bullying, oppression, and the refusal of human rights and freedoms. I remain, however, a disciple of Voltaire and believe that we must "cultivate our own garden".
I see bullying, oppression and refusal of freedom within our own societies which need addressing before I dare criticise my neighbours.
I hope you are out there on the picket line, protesting against aspects of your own society, as I am about mine.